Broken Feat: Allied Defense from Shining South

[entr0py]

Quite alot of discussion and discontent on other boards regarding this feat. I thought I'd bring it here for discussion.

ALLIED DEFENSE
Prerequisite: Combat Expertise
Benefit: Whenever you use Combat Expertise to gain a bonus to Armor Class, any adjacent ally gains the same bonus.

EPIC COMBAT EXPERTISE CW p.151
Prerequisite: Int 19, Combat Expertise, base attack bonus +21
Benefit: When making an attack or full attack action in melee, you can take a penalty of as much as -5 on your attack roll and add the same number (+5 or less) as a dodge bonus to your Armor Class and to the Armor Class of an adjacent friendly creature. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The changes to attack rolls and Armor Class last until your next action. The effect of this feat supercedes the effect of Combat Expertise feat; you can't use both feats simulataneously to gain two dodge bonuses.

The first question, Is it broke? I think the answer is yes. AD is better (as written) than the epic CE feat -- and i'm not even sure i like the way the epic feat is written.

The next question is how to fix it -- or rather how to interpret it properly so its not an overpowering feat?

One discussion is whether multiple adjacent creatures can benefit from being next to one character using this feat? I think it could be interpreted as such, tho that would be outragously powerful.

Another discussion is whether multiple ppl with this feat could grant stacking Dodge bonuses to a single adjacent character -- after all "Dodge bonuses stack."

And the more intuitive question, How can I possibly grant a Dodge bonus to another? Am i kicking them out of the way of an oncoming blow? Is my fancy footwork ** picture Lord of the River Dance here ** so enthralling that the enemy is payin more attention to me than his attack on my comrade?
My point is this: if the idea is that i am somehow interposing myself or parrying blows headed for my adjacent friend, the AC bonus should be a Shield bonus. That would cetainly end all the bonus stacking discussion/debate.

Perhaps any real resolution can only come from the "House Rules" discussion board unless Wizards decides to release an errata.

I now turn it over to my learned fellows in the community.

 

[Darkness]

I'd rule that the dodge bonus is forfeit if the character using the feat and the protected ally are no longer adjacent at any point.

I'd allow that you can still use Improved Combat Expertise to improve your AC (but the maximum is reduced by the bonus of ECE). YMMV, though, and that's fine.

ECE probably is meant to protect only one ally ("an adjacent friendly creature"); AD apparently protects them all ("any adjacent ally gains the same bonus").

Assuming separation of the affected creatures negates the bonus, ECE is not at all unbalanced. But AD appears to be (I'd prefer to do some more number-crunching before making up my mind, though).

I probably wouldn't let multiple users stack the bonuses, dodge bonus or no; ECE says it doesn't stack with Expertise and ECE is Expertise.
Still, I suppose you could argue that since it's another's Expertise, it stacks. I wouldn't, but you could.

 

[Daedrova]

I would agree that AD would be too powerful if interpreted as “all allies” rather than “one ally”, which I wouldn’t do. I don’t see a problem with the feat other than that. The reason it gives a “dodge” bonus to AC would be the same reason CE grants a dodge bonus to AC in the first place. If “deflection” weren’t a magical bonus, that word may be a better descriptor for the AC bonus; or if “parry” was a listed type of bonus, it could work… but I regress
I would also assume that the feat does not intend for the AC bonus given by AD to apply to characters not adjacent. It does say “any adjacent ally gains the same bonus”; thus if you are not adjacent to the character using the feat, you do not gain the AC bonus. The feat is not a lasting spell effect with duration. I don’t know why someone would assume this.

I do not have a problem with multiple people using AD to provide a bonus to a single character’s AC (regardless of what type of bonus it is called). If one guard stood by me to deflect attacks targeting me, I would undeniably be safer from attacks (assuming he was proficient at the task). If two such guards stood by me, I would be safer than with just one. As a matter of fact, the more such guards I had near me, the safer I would be.

Concerning mechanics, each of the characters is still sacrificing some of there attack to do this, and they have all spent the extra feat slot to be able to do so. I see nothing unbalancing. If I am so well protected, than attack someone else.

Finally, ECE is really a terrible feat. For what it does- Epic? Not even close. The requirements are ridiculous because it is an epic feat. Second, it is not sensible that an ally would retain an AC bonus for the entire round regardless of whether he remains adjacent. I think this feat is more poorly constructed and thought out than AD (which is merely missing the word “one”).

 

[entr0py]

It might be a good time to add that Thomas M. Reid, the original author of the feat did not intend for it to be as it was finally printed. He replied to a thread discussing this on a Wizard's discussion board as follows...

Here's my original design:

Benefit: If you are adjacent to an ally, you may choose to transfer the AC bonus you would normally receive from the Combat Expertise feat to your ally. This bonus applies to attacks from any foes you threaten.

For those of you who really like trying to interpret things as wildly and unreasonably as possible, that means that one (and only one) ally would gain the AC bonus instead of you. It's supposed to help a bodyguard protect his charge.

In looking at this feat again as I am writing this, my suspicion is that it is too weak. Why? because it requires the character to have two feats in order to do the work of one feat (Allied Defense isn't any better than Combat Expertise, just different), and it can only be employed under very specific circumstances (the character using it must be adjacent to an ally, and he loses the ability to fight effectively). Who wants to have to take two whole feats and then spend the entire combat protecting someone else? The answer is probably, "not enough people to make it worthwhile," but the design philosophy behind that flaw is subtle.

You see, this wasn't originally a feat, but instead a special ability for one of my prestige classes. The R&D folks thought it would be better as a feat anyone could choose to take, while serving as a free bonus feat to the particular PrC. I transformed it without performing any additional design considerations and turned it over. It's entirely possible that they saw the inherent weaknesses that I didn't originally notice and decided to beef it up. Whether they went too far in their efforts or not, you must take up with one of them.

And i will also add that the munchkins have already been released on this one...

So, if this is true, you have 2 5th level Fighters/Rangers/Swashbucklers fighting next to each other with full Combat Expertise and they would both get +10 AC ? Add a 3rd meleeist in there and you could get +15 AC all around in some situations. Or, put the two meleeists 5 feet apart with a Cleric 5 feet behind and in between them to give the Cleric +10 AC while keeping the meleeists healed.

Oooooo, 2 Fighters with this, Combat Expertise and then the Phalanx Fighting feat, they will have a 25 AC with a 10 Dex and no armor (only a heavy shield and light weapon). Ha!

AND...

How about Swarm Fighting feat? if Im right, four small creatures (we'll say level 5 fighters halflings) in each square of a 3x3 cube. 9 squares x 4 creatures x 5 = +180 AC to the four in the center square, and +80 AC to the four in each of the corners.

 

[entr0py]

unbelievable

 

[Abraxas]

First, what are you still doing up this late?

Second, given the tactics the party uses this feat wouldn't be all that useful as written - everyone runs higgledy piggledy all over the battlefield anyways

Third, I have to agree that its the apparent bonus to all adjacent allies that is the sticking point. Other than that it wouldn't be so bad.

 

[uzagi_akimbo]

Two things .

For one, the bonus from the CE + AD combo should be a non-stacking type, rather than a "dodge" bonus of all things (which would prevent all the cheesy power-mongering from rows of CE+AD using combatants. It's the single AC bonus that does stack ad nauseam). Deflection would be far more appropriate, being applicable only once, although even that would still be cheesy, as it doesn't solve the problem/paradox of a greatsword wielding combatant (especially one in heavy armour) being far more difficult to hit with missile weapons or ranged touch attacks when using CE ... Ever tried to parry a "Scorching Ray" or an "Enervation" ? How about "Disintegrate" ? If it was a dodge bonus, why is there no reference to Dexterity as a prequisite ? Make it a circumstance bonus, and everyone should be fine.

It would also help if the AD rules had clarified that the CE+AD using character actually needs to be in range of the opponent defended against, otherwise one might find a "turtleshell" like formation with one character in the middle of a square formation of nine combatants defending the other eight(!) guys around him at the same time.... Possibly even without a shield or anything... say, like a wizard out of spells etc.... or a "densive specialist using CE, Imp. CE and AD in conjunction.....

So, the problem of AD are founded mostly in the wording of CE (with the ludicrous "dodge" type), and only parially in "Allied Defense" itself.
As a strict "house rule", IMC we use the "in range" and "not a dodge-bonus" approach, which balances the feat out nicely.

Limiting the AC bonus gained to the original CE bonus only, might help as well, forfeiting the enhanced benefits from swashbucklers dueleists and their ilk for their fellow brothers-in-arms.